Three years of MidlifeandTreachery: A top ten

March 15, 2008 at 6:30 PM (Uncategorized) (, , , , , )

This place, and the earlier blog have been around three years this month… Here’s ten of the (not family or directly about my family) posts that I feel are worth re-sharing.

A one and two parter on Terri Schiavo.

I’ve ‘met’ some great bloggers from Tennessee. The state’s handling of TennCare? Not so great.

I’m just too in the middle for most.

More middling.

Able Bodied Antics: They *know* we’d screw up healthcare if we got it.

More Able Bodied Antics: I say PWD’s are often invisible to the able.  Others disagree.  I deride, you decide.

And still more Able Bodied Antics.  They think we’re lucky to be who we are, I suppose.

Push into poverty by inches….that’s a safety net.

We’re less invisible than we used to be…but uppity has to be a lifelong work.

Permalink 2 Comments

A rather flawed request to tinker with the ADA Restoration Act

March 15, 2008 at 6:39 AM (Uncategorized) (, , , )

Here, they start out well:

and explain how the court’s view and rulings on the ADA has narrowed it so tightly as to be no help at all in employment discrimination cases.

In the view of the U. S. Supreme Court, a person who can successfully use a mitigating device (hearing aid, corrective lenses, medication, etc.) is by definition no longer disabled. And because the person is not disabled, they are no longer protected by the ADA. Your basic “Catch 22.”

Thesis one above: If the condition you use a wheelchair for, use a scooter for, take meds for is mitigated then you are unprotected by the ADA.

Not a ‘few’, ‘some’ ‘most’ many.’

*Any* PWD that uses medicines and or assistive tech to quote “mitigate” unquote their impairment(s) in order to be able to work no longer protected by the ADA by the logic above…which I would argue is a shockingly large percentage of PWD’s with jobs.

But then OOOOOO!!!!!! The Big Scary Broad Definition of Disability *cannot be allowed to become law…????*”

The generous definition of disability could well have an unintended consequence: by expanding eligibility, the new law would lose its focus on the people who need protection the most – those who face persistent and profound obstacles in their effort to secure or maintain employment. Another consequence would harm employers, already burdened by the exacting procedural standards governing their behavior under the ADA. More inclusive eligibility would open the door to potentially frivolous claims.

It is not the fault of someone with a disability that frivolous claims would occur. It is not the responsibility of a person with a disability to suck it up and have their life changed irrevocably because they have no recourse since….frivolous claims would occur.

If they now have no recourse, the definitions *must* change.

If the author here is saying instead that “I believe that anybody can diagnose condition A” and that if we let functional impairment/condition A in the entire country would sue, ” then let’s debate that. Let’s have some nuance and some research.

And of course even that argument is bull because all the courts and legislators would have to do is *talk to a group of people* with impairment/condition A, *before* the law changes and review their stories, and from these, say to themselves…yes, this is disability or, yes, this is disability for some and not others, or no, as far as we can see now this condition never meets even the broader threshold we want, so out it goes, with room to include it later as new evidence comes up.

It  amazes me that a subset of able bodied people *even* now, pontificate about the ADA Restoration Act *without talking with actual PWD’s first.*

Permalink 1 Comment